Firearms history - what's the deal with tiny handguns and mondo rifles in the 20th?

Up until the end of the 20th century, and especially from the beginning to the middle of it, people have been running around with extremely dinky handgund but extremely powerful and heavy 30 cal rifles. Why this juxtaposition?

In handguns in Europe especially we see people running around with .38 spc LRN, .25s, 9mm FMJ, and stuff like that. I remember an ad for the first James Bond movie referred to a 38 as a "manstopper."

On the other hand it was also the era of ginormous 30 cal battle rifles.

I'm confused by this. For a while I thought that skinny hungry Europeans from the 30s were so weak compared to modern Americans that you only needed a .38 to drop one, but that doesn't explain why everyone was also exclusively using big battle rifles.

I honestly can't imagine. Most of Europe progressed from large caliber, slow moving rounds in revolvers to small (relatively speaking) caliber, high speed rounds in semi-automatics between 1870 and 1940. My best guess is that something about the transition from black powder to smokeless powder inspired the Europeans to mimic the ~30 caliber, high speed nature of their rifle rounds in their pistols (not reproducing rifle velocities in pistols, obviously). The British Enfields chambered in .303 British provides a sharp contrast to that theory, since the British kept using their .455 Webley revolvers.

Originally Posted by Wounded Ronin

I remember an ad for the first James Bond movie referred to a 38 as a "manstopper."

When Bond was issued his PPK, whichever movie that was, Q described it (roughly) as follows: "capable of outstanding long range accuracy, with enough power to knock down a door." I can't think of a single Bond film, past or present, that was at all realistic about ballistics—internal, external, or terminal. I should probably be grateful for the general lack of realism, though, as I wouldn't want to see a Bond film that contained a discussion of STDs.

Maybe it has something to do with application. A pistol is either a military sidearm/backup weapon or a civilian defensive weapon, and a rifle is a devoted killing weapon for warfare or hunting large game.

I honestly can't imagine. Most of Europe progressed from large caliber, slow moving rounds in revolvers to small (relatively speaking) caliber, high speed rounds in semi-automatics between 1870 and 1940. My best guess is that something about the transition from black powder to smokeless powder inspired the Europeans to mimic the ~30 caliber, high speed nature of their rifle rounds in their pistols (not reproducing rifle velocities in pistols, obviously). The British Enfields chambered in .303 British provides a sharp contrast to that theory, since the British kept using their .455 Webley revolvers.

When Bond was issued his PPK, whichever movie that was, Q described it (roughly) as follows: "capable of outstanding long range accuracy, with enough power to knock down a door." I can't think of a single Bond film, past or present, that was at all realistic about ballistics—internal, external, or terminal. I should probably be grateful for the general lack of realism, though, as I wouldn't want to see a Bond film that contained a discussion of STDs.

Check out this old video I just searched up. A pseudo documentary promotional thing on Bond's guns, holsters, etc. To its credit the last gun in the lineup is a .44 magnum, which certainly isn't a dinky handgun.